|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Biological classification vs 'Kind' | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 4988 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
quote: I'll try to do a little better. However, as I've previously stated I base my conclusions upon the evidence I've reviewed. Being only one person has very limited free time I can take me a while to review evidence. I am open to review specific evidence that's posted here in the discussions I am part of. In fact, this evidence has led me to two nagging 'voice in the back of my head' problems:1) accelerated radio-isotope decay (as touted by YECs) causing extreme heat. 2) ERV patterns following the phyolgenetic tree. #1 paticularly is bothersome since I haven't yet seen a reasonable YEC explanation (but I haven't done a lot of searching either). #2 not as much since Borger's baranome hypothesis answers it to some extent (though I intend to give it a closer look). Neither of these is sufficient to sway my belief in YEC - it still seems to fit the evidence that I have reviewed better than darwinian evolution - but maybe you all will change that.
quote: Sorry...it appears I may have misrepresented this. this is the study I was thinking of. If I understand it correctly, it shows that much of the redundancy in the genome is not due to gene duplication. I was wrong in that it didn't have anything to do with frequency.
quote: Another poor choice of wording on my part. What I meant was: The evolutionary prediction that this type of adaptation requires large amounts of time is falsified by these studies. Therefore, if common ancestry is true - why does it require billions of years to get from the first life to modern life?
quote: Here's the link to a study demonstrating this. Remember: transposons are a type of semi-functional remnant VIGE in Borger's hypothesis.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 4988 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
quote: Yes, I understand this also. I have only used the term 'atheist' to specifically refer to atheists - not evolutionists. For the quote in question I was referring to abiogenesis - a distinctly atheistic belief - thus I referenced atheists, a subset of darwinists who adhere to that belief. While there may be some crossover I suspect that the vast majority of non-atheistic darwinists are theistic evolutionists - ie: they believe the creation of life at least included some divine element.
quote: But it does help those of us who have a reason to postulate the supernatural.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 725 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
was referring to abiogenesis - a distinctly atheistic belief - Huh? God isn't smart enough to use carbonyl sulfide to make polypeptides from the amino acids that He made in the solar nebula? If you think a moment, you will likely come to the realization that once there was no life on this planet. Now there is. Abiogenesis is "life from no life," specifically, cellular/protocellular/viral life. So you theists are stuck with abiogenesis, unless your Creator was of one of those forms.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 4988 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
quote: Yes, YEC scientists did predict Neanderthal to be human - and have for some time. Here's a quote from a 2003 AiG article:
Biblical creationists, on the other hand, believe that there were no ‘subhumans’ at any time. Neandertal fossils are all post-Flood, so these bones are believed to represent just one more group of people which split off from other groups following the Babel dispersion. I know the prediction goes further back than that too. If you're looking for a more scientific looking prediction, here's an article from Dr. Borger who uses the "indicator gene" method (the one he referenced in the baramin hypothesis that was briefly discussed) to predict neanderthal's inclusion in the human baramin:
The recent DNA analysis of the Neandertaler, who according to evolutionary timescales evolved around 400 thousand years ago, showed they carried the exact same FOXP2 protein (deduced from the DNA sequence) as modern humans, including the N and S at position 304 and 326, respectively.4 In addition to morphological and physiological evidence for the vocal tract, including the modern hyoid bone,5 molecular biology is now providing support that Neandertals were fully equipped for speaking complex languages. The FOXP2 genes found in Neandertals therefore show that they were Homo sapiens. These findings are entirely in accord with the creationist’s stance that Neandertals were fully human (post-Flood) inhabitants of Europe and Asia. quote: Here's an AiG review of Wood, B. and Collard, M., The human genus, Science 284(5411):65—71, 1999. I can't access the original article without a subscription - but unless AiG is misrepresenting the findings the study showed H. Ergaster to be completely human with the exception of brain size - which was more ape-like. Since small brains have been found in modern humans without impairing function I don't see any reason to consider this a human ancestor. I'm curious if there is DNA available for sequencing for H. Ergaster - if there is I predict that the FOXP2 protein will be identical to modern humans, thus confirming H. Ergaster is part of the human baramin. Edited by BobTHJ, : fix tag formatting of link Edited by BobTHJ, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 4988 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
quote: FYI, Wile's blog auto-closes comments on posts older than about a month. I've seen him mention before that if you want to comment on an old post to just post your comment to one of the more recent posts and he would address it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 4988 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
quote: I wouldn't normally respond to a post such as this - but I thought I ought to clarify something. I will respond to any post that:1) Contains evidence (particularly if backed by references) that either refutes a YEC position I have advocated or advances a darwinian position I have attempted to refute (so long as it is on topic). 2) Asks a non-rhetorical question of me which I have not yet answered in the current thread (though my response may be "I don't know"). What I can not do however is continue to respond over and over again to posts that attempt to 'gotcha!' me on some silly issue, or that ask me to describe something I have already described in detail more than once. Some examples are: 1) Discussions on why I believe naturalistic science to be flawed2) Assuming I think all darwinists are atheists 3) Proclaiming that my religious beliefs force me to be a YEC You are certainly welcome to disagree with me on these issues, but I can no longer respond. I'm working hard to get caught up on the legitimate responses to my posts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 4988 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
quote: But there are aquatic and flying mammals that both use echolocation. And when I brought that up you told me that we don't classify based on a single feature but on the overall similarity. Based on overall similarity I could build a nested hierarchy of vehicles.
quote: Yes there is....common design. Every other level of nature shows order in similar structures - why would we not find it at the genetic or morphological levels? I'm adding common design to my list of topics that I've explained too many times to warrant further responses.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3634 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Yes there is....common design. Every other level of nature shows order in similar structures But that is not common design! That is order based upon physics. The similarity between stars is not common design - it is a necessity based upon the Standard Model. The similarity between mountains is not common design - it is a necessity based upon geophysics. The similarity between snowflakes is not common design - it is a necessity based upon the structure of water and intermolecular forces. Or were you refering to something else?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22360 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Wounded King writes: Taken simply as a term there are in fact several well characterised Variation Inducing Genetic Elements (VIGEs). I had done a cursory search for the term at Google and Wikipedia and not found it, so am I correct in interpreting you as saying that while VIGE is not as yet a term used within biology, the genetic object it refers to does actually exist? Or is VIGE a real term? Your technical lingo was a bit tough to follow, but it was pretty clear that you're saying that VIGEs have played a "significant role in genome evolution." You provided some references, but I'd probably find them tough to follow, too. If Borger is wrong about what he says about VIGEs, how do we know that? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2096 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
If you are positing H. ergaster to be a racial variant of H. sapiens that developed after the flood, and most likely after Babel, do you realize the implications?
You are proposing the exact same type of evolutionary change that scientists propose except thousands of times faster and in reverse! Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 4988 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
quote: see "common design"
quote: This is bad logic. Yes common ancestry requires a nested hierarchy, and yes we seem to have an ontological model that looks very similar to a nested hierarchy. However, you need more than that to prove common ancestry - if this weren't the case then scientists would have no reason to go "hoopla!" every time they find a so-called transitional fossil. They are desperate for something to support this massive assumption.
quote: Complete nonsense. The theory of evolution is based upon the opinions of Charles Darwin (and others). You may have evidence that you believe supports it, but that doesn't make it any more evidence based than YEC.
quote: It originated from Darwin's opinions about nature, which he believed coincided with the evidence.
quote: Naturalism didn't lead to those advances. An increasing population size and the freedom to pursue science relatively unrestricted of political bonds did. I'll reference AiG's list of creationists agian - if you scroll down you will see that many of the scientists who made significant advances in modern science were creationists. Science didn't advance because of naturalism - it advanced in spite of it.
quote: If you'd like to discuss this I am happy to. Let's take them one at a time. You pick.
quote: For the continued advancement of science. If/when the day comes that common ancestry is discarded as a viable theory it would be nice to have some of the classification work of baramins complete so no further time is wasted.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2096 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
With this post you've apparently stopped pretending to be looking for the evidence and are just peddling your YEC beliefs.
quote: Complete nonsense. The theory of evolution is based upon the opinions of Charles Darwin (and others). You may have evidence that you believe supports it, but that doesn't make it any more evidence based than YEC. The answer is that YEC stems from the bible and not the scientific evidence. The scientific evidence overwhelmingly contradicts the YEC belief. The theory of evolution, on the other hand, stems from the scientific evidence. How far do you think Darwin's hypothesis would have gone if the evidence contradicted it? It would have died a quiet death. Instead, as time passes, more and more evidence is found which supports the theory. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
Or is VIGE a real term? VIGE isn't a term used in biology, it is Borger's own coining which covers ...
Borger writes: endogenous retroviruses, insertion sequences, LINEs, SINEs, micro-satellites, transposons Borger makes a serious of totally unsupported assertions which distinguish his understanding of VIGE's from mainstream science. Firstly he postulates that rather than endogenous retroviruses being the result of RNA viruses being incorporated into human germ line cells, instead RNA viruses are the result of the ERV type VIGE becoming independent of its created place within the 'baranome'. Borger says that this solve the 'RNA virus paradox', a paradox no one outside of creationists and IDists has ever noticed apart from in one paper (Holmes, 2003) which also puts forward several solutions to this apparent paradox. So as seems to be habitual Borger simply throws out the current model and replaces it with one of his own which has nothing to support it. He also decides to totally throw out all we know about variation which occurs independently of his 'VIGE' mediated mechanisms as well as totally ignoring all the multiple examples of 'VIGE' induced varaition which have absolutely no effect or are highly detrimental, all the evidence in fact that shows that the vast majority of activity of these elements is as random with respect to fitness as any other mutational factor. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminModulous Administrator Posts: 897 Joined: |
Everybody has a responsibility for topic focus. Can everyone please try to move the topic back towards its purpose? Since Bob has joined the topic has changed a little bit, by mutual consent to discussing whether barminology fairs better than the consensus classification scheme by some standard or another.
If the person you are debating with (whichever side of the fence) raises a point you think might be contributing to topic drift either redirect it back on topic somehow, ignore it, refer your opponent to an on-topic thread where you have posted your response but please try not to fill pages and pages of this thread up with discussions on the origin of the theory or vestigial organs, etc. I appreciate this kind of drift is perfectly natural, but a concerted effort can bring things back into relevance is needed. And Bob - I don't know your experience with forums previous, but this one lives and dies on topic focus. Experience has shown us that discussions can become useless noise if there is no focus. Before you write a reply - consider if it really contributes towards the discussion of consensus classification vs barminology. Until another moderator happens to take over, I'm officially dropping out of this thread as a participant and will be keeping an eye on things from here on in. Finally - check your subtitle threads. Some of them are quite old now. Please do not reply to this message. If you have any issue regarding it, or any other issues with this discussion - please post a message to Report discussion problems here: No.2
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9944 Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
But there are aquatic and flying mammals that both use echolocation. And when I brought that up you told me that we don't classify based on a single feature but on the overall similarity. Based on overall similarity I could build a nested hierarchy of vehicles. Echolocation is not a morphological feature. It is a behavior.
Yes there is....common design. There is no reason that an omnipotent and omniscient supernatural designer would reuse designs. For an all powerful being starting from scratch involves the same effort as reusing design. Therefore, there is no expectation for common design.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024